Oil and Water and Measure P

Friday, October 17, 2014

Article Tools

Although I strongly disagree with him, I welcome Professor Eric Smith’s Voice opposing Measure P. Its calm tone and rational approach give both sides a chance to offer reasons rather than rhetoric.

However, he conflates two issues, environment and fairness. The fate of current drilling is an issue of fairness to already committed workers and investors. It’s important, but that’s why Measure P (like other land use laws) specifically stipulates that it applies only to future development (future wells using high-intensity techniques), not to existing operations (current drilling): see Section 5, paragraph C, on p. 26. I’m not a lawyer, but the only ambiguity I can see is whether current permits would be renewed in future; all the officials who should know seem to say they would be. Smith claims there would be a “substantial” reduction, but he gives no evidence or examples.

For the environment, Smith’s argument cannot be strictly true. Measure P couldn’t reduce S.B. oil and gas drilling substantially, because it isn’t substantial now. It is about one percent of Santa Barbara’s economy and a far smaller fraction of world or U.S. oil supplies.

Still, he might argue that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from thousands (or tens of thousands) of new wells — using methods banned by Measure P — would be less than the emissions caused by importing an equal amount of foreign oil that we’d be using if we didn’t drill these wells. But the numbers don’t support this argument. According to reports by IHSCERA posted on the American Petroleum Institute website, which take into account production, transportation, and refining, greenhouse gas emissions from California heavy oil are substantially higher than the average U.S. barrel consumed.

Further, this comparison is biased against Measure P. It assumes the oil drilled here will stay here. It won’t. It will be transported to refineries elsewhere and become part of the global pool, to be sent wherever the profits are best — regardless of emissions and ocean pollution, which are “externalities” the oil industry ignores. What little comes back here will be a negligible part of what we use. It is possible, even likely, that the new oil would be exported rather than sold in the U.S., leading to more transportation, not less. Last year, the U.S. exported more gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel than it imported.

Even this oversimplifies. It assumes the demand for oil is constant or increasing: Whatever we don’t produce, we’ll have to buy. That’s not the trend. Conservation and renewable energy are becoming more attractive as the technology improves, and fossil fuels less so as their costs (hidden, external, and other) grow and become clearer. This is a slow process, partly because fossil fuel is so heavily subsidized, but it’s gaining speed and is the solution to global warming in the long run.

A second environmental issue is local. The procedures targeted by Measure P use lots of water, pollute the water table, and pollute the air. Smith seems to ignore the first: “Bans on drilling techniques that are not alleged to be risky have nothing to do with … environmentalism.” Surely gobbling vast amounts of water in a largely agricultural county during a long drought with no end in sight has everything to do with environmentalism: It’s not “risky” — it’s certain! The City of Santa Maria uses about 4 billion gallons of water. In 2013, enhanced oil recovery operations in California used more than 80 billion gallons, about the amount used by 500,000 households. The grandiose plans targeted by Measure P could use many times that amount. How much? Is it suitable for agriculture? We don’t know because they don’t have to tell us.

Smith does describe the risk of water table contamination, but he would handle it by a moratorium, study, and then regulation. In a better world, I would, too. But the oil industry doesn’t tolerate such objective procedures. When the scientific evidence for global warming became overwhelming, the industry could have joined with government, scientists, other experts, and stakeholders to plan a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels over several decades, to minimize disruption of energy supplies, its workers’ livelihoods, and even its own ability to continue making profits while moving into cleaner activities, including conservation and renewables. Instead, it chose an all-out assault, hiring legions of lobbyists and liars to smear scientists as “hoaxers,” without producing any evidence or seriously addressing the science.

The industry would fight a moratorium, study, and regulation just as fiercely and deceptively as it is fighting Measure P. If it passed, the industry would do what it took to control or discredit the studies; and then they would challenge and defy the regulations, and deceive and corrupt the regulators. The difference between a moratorium and a ban is not that the ban is forever: It’s that ending the ban would require the oil industry to guarantee to voters that it will accept a vigorous, independent regulatory structure to ensure it operates responsibly.

The oil industry has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to address concerns like global warming, the local environment, or the lives of its workers, unless it is forced to. Measure P is a small step in the right direction.

Allan Stewart-Oaten is professor (emeritus) of mathematical biology in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California, Santa Barbara.

Comments

Poor Allan in his emeritus and apparently addle brained position in life, this statement from your letter is one of the dumber things I have read for a very long time: "For the environment, Smith’s argument cannot be strictly true. Measure P couldn’t reduce S.B. oil and gas drilling substantially, because it isn’t substantial now."If the linchpin of your point of view is that petroleum production is insignificant in this county and that, strictly speaking, something that is insignificant cannot therefore be significantly reduced, then those of your ilk have nothing to worry about with continued, well regulated exploration and drilling.Were you a pretty smart guy before you got old?

The blowout in 1969 at Platform A which fouled beaches and led Union Oil president Fred Hartley to say `I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds.' is why petroleum production is relatively low in Santa Barbara County.

If the oil industry were forthright and responsible, and not secretive and untrustable, there could be a lot more oil production here.

Lately it has been Venoco that prevaricates over their sulfurous emissions from the Ellwood Onshore Facility and Platform Holly. They are big donors to the No-on-P campaign, and they take $0.83 of the $1.00 in taxpayer assets they get under their no-bid contract to donate to the No-on-P effort and pay there brass millions in yearly salary.

So Davy, as a reasonable person, you agree with Allen's statements about "substantially"? Interesting that you have called the folks against P as being shills for the oil companies; that hardly describes me. Further, there seems to more sycophantic comments from the pro P group; if you don't agree with our version of saving the planet the only plausible explanation is that we are stupid or paid off.I will just assume that Linda is as addle brained as Lewis and would not understand the construction of a logical argument if it flew out of an uncapped oil well and drenched her with reason. I do pity the elderly and their declining faculties, however.

Yes on P! The "substantially" is meant to counter Prof. Smith's angle that the oil industry is BIG in SB County and if it went down a great number of SB County jobs would be lost. Of course I feel bad for those who will lose their oil-related jobs, but fossil fuels are a failing industry, these wells are petering out, it isn't environmentally safe or intelligent to do intensive secondary recovery. You're superficially pretty slick nomore, but once one reads the details, e.g. what Allan actually wrote and Smith's earlier piece, you're still a mouthpiece for Big Oil. Take a break, P will win.

Nomoresanity, I have no idea who this "Lewis" may be, but I assure you that I still have all my faculties intact and so does Allan. Resorting to name-calling, as you've done, isn't exactly the earmark of meaningful dialog or logical argument, so I think we can pretty much discount anything coming from you henceforth.

I believe Prof Stewart-Oaten (and his wife) Linda are conspicuous intellects. We can see that from how well they write. Sadly however, their piece is a well written rehash of the Katie/Linda talking points. Its the talking points that are lacking, not the Professor or his wife.

In spite of your jerking knee Davy, I still like your comments. Occasionally, you even end up in the middle instead of off the Left of the planet. I'll explain Lewis later if this string is not boring; I honestly thought you would get it as a reference to another addle brained poster posing as an intellectual. I don't like big oil but I do like having necessary petroleum instead of living in the Dark Ages.

The USA is rapidly becoming the top petroleum producer in the world; we have no shortages at all, nomore, and in any case the SB max output is infinitesimal compared to US output. There's plenty of petroleum even if all SB production stopped tomorrow, so no paranoia needed about "living in the Dark Ages". Bizarre.

speaking of age, noonpmemes metaphor's are the most dated, and target the bottom barrel of 80/90's culture/intellect. Elites? Look at the numbers. The only elites here are those supporting your cause noonp, the other side doesn't even qualify (size of checkbook yo). RELATIVE, as if its a putdown. Bottom of the barrel, appeal to the lowest of human values. Nice. The oil game gets dirtier, as if it was even possible. ANYTHING to make a buck. BOO!

Tired of the incessant media barrage that Chevron et al are inundating the media with ? Want to hear a few folks with first hand knowledge and experience talk about what these guys will do to Santa Barbara County? Watch this -https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk-MdvO...

No on P Memes, Allan wrote his response to Professor Eric Smith's earlier article without being handed "talking points" points from anyone. Like most intelligent people, he is quite capable of doing his own research and forming his own conclusions. This isn't the Faux News forum, after all.

Allan and I are both very proud of our daughter-in-law Katie Davis and the hard work she's done to put Measure P on the ballot. it just so happens that we would have been fully in support of YES on Measure P, even if she had played no part in it.

Nuffalready, it's really quite odd for you to refer to my husband and me as "conspicuous intellects" , as if being intelligent is something to be ashamed of. That's just bizarre.

There's no scientific evidence for global warming; CO2 cools the atmosphere, according to NASA data. There's been no warming in 18 years, while CO2 has increased. Former UCSB professors claiming they're colleagues of Eric Smith have published statements in the Indy and Noozhawk claiming CH4 is a dangerous GHG. Its absorption bands are saturated by water - it can't possibly affect the climate, and it's a no-brainer to find that information online.

LindaSO - I didn't look at your link. Most NASA data is altered in recent years. Historical temperatures are lowered to create the appearance of recent warming, and I don't think anyone who's serious about climate who uses NASA data when non-US and UK data is available. The SABER project measured reflection of incoming radiation by CO2 and NO, so it wasn't used in NASA press releases. The 2012 satellite data showed 85% of incoming radiation was reflected NASA data is used by NOAA, and GISS data is also altered. The extent of the alteration has been increasing with time. Here's a Google search on alterations. The terms scam or fraud return a lot of information on this, and it's a major reason that many NASA and NOAA and GISS scientists have quit.https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...

Uh huh, sure 14SCAMS. As I suspected, it's pointless to engage with someone like you, who only believes the "science" he likes. Might I remind you that you were the one who initially claimed to have NASA data which supported your contention that there is no global warming. Do you get your "science" information from The Daily Caller? You can of course continue to post whatever nonsense you want, but those of us who have even the most basic familiarity with real science, will know not to bother reading any of it. Enjoy your fabrications and delusions.

... climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998," wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: "Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more."

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere.

It is well known that a CO2 level in the garden's air between 700 and 900 ppm improves crop development and yield. Most plants grown for their beautiful flowers or foliage optimally develop at about 800 ppm. Roses are distinctive as they require about 1200 ppm in carbon dioxide concentration for best results. For many fruits and vegetables, the ideal CO2 level in the garden should be at least between 1000 and 1200 ppm.